TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redominant part of the manufactured goods to other EOUs, the appellants filed refund claims with the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Jigani Division, Bangalore seeking cash refund in respect of unutilized Cenvat credit availed on inputs/input services availed by them under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 ('CCR' for short) read with Notification No 27/2012 CE (NT) dated 18-06-2012. All the 7 refund claims were disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Jigani Division, Bangalore vide different OIOs wherein the cash refunds were restricted to the extent of goods physically exported by the appellants out of India and refund claims in respect of goods cleared to EOUs under Inter Unit Transfer (IUT) were rejected. The details of the claims filed and refund sanctioned and rejected are as follows:- Sl. No Period Refund applied for (Rs) Refund sanctioned by DC Amount in dispute and subject matter of the present appeals (Rs) 1 Jan 2015 to March 2015 9,00,000/- 1,98,436/- (vide OIO No 78/2016-(R) dated 31-05-2016 2,94,261/- (as per impugned OIA No 141 to 147/2019 dated 13-05-2019 2 Apr 2015 to June 2015 17,59,1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the said appellant were debited in the Cenvat credit at the time of filing the refund claim as required by the then Notification No 27/2012-C.E dated 18-06-2012 and hence the appellant was entitled to take recredit of the Cenvat credit for which the claims were filed. He further submitted that in the in the present case while claiming cash refund, the present appellants had already debited the entire Cenvat credit in respect of which the claims had been filed as required under the then Notification No 27/2012-C.E dated 18-06-2012 and the said fact is clearly recorded in each of the OIO passed by the Deputy Commissioner. He further submitted that the following amounts were lying in balance at the time the Goods and Service Tax regime came to be implemented w.e.f. 01/07/2017. Sl. No Period Amount in dispute and subject matter of the present appeals 1 Jan 2015 to March 2015 Rs. 2,94,261/- 2 Apr 2015 to June 2015 Rs. 12,98,055/- 3 July 2015 to September 2015 Rs. 11,78,569/- 5.2. It is his further submission that OIOs had been passed by the Deputy Commissioner during the year 2016 i.e. before the Central Excise law was re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; He further submitted that the credit itself was never disallowed and the cenvat credit amount in dispute lying in the balance as on31/06/2017 are liable to be refunded to the appellant in cash as per the provisions of sub-section 3 or sub-section 6(a) of Section 142 of CGST Act. He further submitted that this Tribunal has consistently held that cenvat credit existing in the cenvat account as on the date of coming into force of CGST shall be granted in cash. For this, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. SMG International Versus Commissioner of Central Excise [2019 (21) G.S.T.L 446 (Tri-Chan)] ii. Oswal Castings Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of C.Ex [2019 (24) G.S.T.L 649 (Tri-Chan]] iii. Rawalwasia Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd Versus Commr. Of C.Ex [2019 (26) G.S.T.L 196 (Tri-Chan)] iv. Toshiba Machine (Chennai) P. Ltd Versus Commr. Of Central Tax, [2019 (27) G.S.T.L 218 (Tri-Chennai)] v. Great India Steel Fabricators Versus Commissioner of C.Ex & S.T [2019 (28) G.S.T.L 279 (Tri-Chan)] 6. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) after consideri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... admissible to the claimant shall be refunded to him in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and the amount rejected, if any, shall not be admissible as input tax credit under this Act : Provided that no refund shall be allowed of any amount of CENVAT credit where the balance of the said amount as on the appointed day has been carried forward under this Act; (b) every proceeding of appeal, review or reference relating to recovery of CENVAT credit initiated whether before, on or after the appointed day under the existing law shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and if any amount of credit becomes recoverable as a result of such appeal, review or reference, the same shall, unless recovered under the existing law, be recovered as an arrear of tax under this Act and the amount so recovered shall not be admissible as input tax credit under this Act. 8. Further I find that this Tribunal in the case of Wave Mechanics Pvt. Ltd. cited supra has held that cash refund is not admissible u....